Count by issue, not recipients
A mass email copied to many recipients is one transmission event with multiple recipient lanes—not hundreds of independent notices.
Classify the answer
Automated acknowledgment, human acknowledgment, substantive response, denial, official action, dispute, and no public artifact are separate statuses.
Publish adverse material
Denials, counter-record, and unfavorable institutional answers remain linked rather than being edited out.
Response record · as of August 19, 2026
Transmission, response, action, and limits stay in the same row.
| ID / sent | Institution | Issue / classification | Response date | Located response or action | Source / limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRL-001 2026-02-16 | Opposing counsel / implementation lane | Implementation of February 11 order: contact, therapy, records, and logistics Substantive response - disputed | 2026-02-16 | Counsel responded that Amanda would provide contact information, that Justin would pay for reunification therapy, and that in-person contact could occur later in March if obligations were met. | Source The response proves the stated position; it does not establish that the position correctly interpreted the order. |
| IRL-002 2026-03-18 | Opposing counsel / implementation lane | Scheduling, individual counseling, and in-person contact coordination Substantive response - disputed | 2026-03-18 | Counsel wrote that the child would determine contact and that the mother could not control or force it. | Source The response records counsel’s position; the legal and factual merits remain disputed. |
| IRL-003 2026-04-06 | Opposing counsel / school and holiday implementation lane | Attendance notifications and Easter-contact nonresponse Substantive response - disputed | 2026-04-06 | Counsel addressed school tardiness and wrote that there was nothing more the mother could do regarding contact. | Source The exchange does not independently resolve the school record, adult-facilitation duty, or enforcement question. |
| IRL-004 2026-04-20 | Opposing counsel / compliance review lane | Written implementation position after therapy scheduling Substantive response - disputed | 2026-04-21 | Counsel stated that he and his client would review supplied compliance evidence and reiterated that the child could not be forced into contact. | Source The exchange records a private review posture; it does not adjudicate compliance or the order’s meaning. |
| IRL-005 2026-05-01 | Opposing counsel / therapy and litigation-exposure lane | Concern that adult litigation framing was reaching the child Substantive denial | 2026-05-01 | Counsel stated that nothing was coming from Amanda or her family and that the concern could be raised in therapy. | Source The denial is part of the counter-record and does not by itself establish the source of the child’s statement. |
| IRL-006 2026-07-21 | Tyler Technologies / Maine Judicial Branch administration | Preservation notice concerning rejection and failure messages and system performance No public-safe substantive response artifact linked | — | The public site record contains the notice and the later Gmail audit, but no linked vendor or AOC performance response as of August 19. | Source Absence from the public site is not proof that no private, later, or unlocated response exists. |
| IRL-007 2026-07-24 | Maine Board of Overseers | Open letter, grievance record, and public-member review request Human acknowledgment / routing instruction | 2026-07-27 | Bar Counsel advised that the matter was no longer with that office and directed further filings to the Clerk’s Office. | Source A routing instruction is not a substantive merits response. |
| IRL-008 2026-08-07 | York Judicial Center / York District Court | Rule 5 service and notice of post-judgment filings Official procedural action | 2026-08-14 | The court entered a procedural order preserving one enforcement motion, dismissing other filings, requiring certified-mail service, and scheduling an October 8 hearing. | Source The procedural order is not a merits ruling on the enforcement allegations. |
| IRL-009 2026-08-17 | Maine Law Court and simultaneous public-accountability recipients | Open letter: the May 12 order has not been made real No public-safe substantive response artifact linked | — | The signed public letter and transmission record are linked. No later public institutional answer is included in the site record as of August 19. | Source This status describes the public site record only. |
| IRL-010 2026-08-18 | Board intake / judicial-conduct routing lane | Rule 10(c) intake, preservation, and referral request Filed; no public disposition artifact linked | — | The public-safe summary and redacted transmission proof are linked. A written jurisdictional or routing disposition is not yet linked. | Source Filing proves transmission, not jurisdiction, investigation, or agreement. |
Publication-status rule: “No public-safe substantive response artifact linked” describes this website’s source record. It is not represented as proof that no private, later, or unlocated response exists.